He also told the tribunal the inspector had agreed to provide a quote on what it might cost to do the repairs, but when it didn’t arrive within three days, he escalated the complaint to the company’s director.
He too turned out to be “unhelpful”, suggesting the vehicle owner take his work elsewhere and refused to provide the quote.
The respondent said the inspection only identified non-compliance with the rules and there was no agreement to provide a detailed mechanical report beyond reporting the failures against the WOF standard.
The unhappy vehicle owner claimed he was entitled to compensation for the “poor service” and sought $825 to cover the cost of repairs needed to bring his vehicle up to warrantable standard, a refund of the $40 warrant cost - despite having no complaint with the inspection itself, and the tribunal filing fee.
The respondent said the inspection was done with reasonable care and skill, and that its employees tried to explain to the vehicle owner why it had failed the warrant and the areas that needed attention to fix the problem.
But the applicant claimed he was given contrary information about why the belt failed, which he felt was misleading.
The tribunal explored if a refund was appropriate, given that the inspection had been subcontracted, but found there was no agreement between the parties on how the service would be completed and by whom.
Neither was there evidence that the applicant was disadvantaged by this or had suffered any loss because of it.
The tribunal said the applicant claimed he’d faced additional cost by having to replace the power steering belt rather than simply clean it, but a review of the WOF checksheet showed there was no advice given that the belt needed to be replaced - it simply listed the fault.
“The applicant’s main complaint is poor customer service. I found the respondent’s evidence the more persuasive,” tribunal referee Bernadine Hannan said.
“It seems the applicant misunderstood the work he contracted for and expected the respondent to provide a service he did not pay for.”
Hannan said the respondent did try to assist the car owner, who was unable to hear the advice offered, that being, “take his vehicle to a mechanic and arrange the repair at his own cost”.
She said the company director’s letter of November 2022, and text messaging supported her view that the car owner was “assertively insisting” the respondent provide a detailed mechanical report he had not contracted nor paid for and that the respondent had politely declined.
“I can find no cause of action nor loss in the applicant’s claim,” Hannan said in dismissing the application.
“The applicant’s remedy is to go elsewhere next time,” she said.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
